Van Dammer Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 What amazes me about the license fee is how they still struggle to make everyone pay it, a bit like Car tax. You just dont see SKY showing adverts about how youd better pay your bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 A full-scale political row broke out last night after First Minister Alex Salmond pledged to extend the council tax freeze for another two years if the SNP wins next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 You just dont see SKY showing adverts about how youd better pay your bill. Â Because Sky can just withold the service by blocking your card. Â And in the 20 years Sky have been operating and in the modern day of Digital TV could a similar system not have been adopted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 But that isnt the only option available to them. It might have been 50 years ago, it isnt now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 But that isnt the only option available to them. It might have been 50 years ago, it isnt now. Â Except for the fact that they can't encrpyt their signal under their remit as a public service broadcaster. Â As I said, that isnt their only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Thats not the point im making. Why spend millions and lose millions ebcause of households that dont pay a TV Licence? Why not just spend millions updating the technology/system to ensure nobody gets away with not paying. The whole rule on being a free to air service is ancient and doesnt work. Digital set top boxes have been around for a generation now but we still have pointy aerials on our roofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Just a heads up if anyone's interested, a programme on tax avoidance on CH4 now, might be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Well that wasnt too bad now was it? Will the appalling scare and doom mongers will kindly fuck off now please. Â Yet again all hype over substance. Nick Robinson is again getting in on the act "7 million people will be 1000 pounds worse off ... through a 7 Billion cut in something" Yes, that would be the case if its an specific targetted split to whomever you are trying to scare and ignoring every other thing under the sun, you keep going with your utter bollocks Nick ( works out like 160 quid across 60 million or whatever the populus is). Really getting to a point where he is worse than Boulton and Burley. Â Yes there have been cuts people will still worry and things wont happen, but still the doom and gloomers go ahead.. Alan Johnson is completely making himself a tit in response as well (what is he trying to gloat about exactly?) Â Fun times ahead in pollytics I fink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 You really are a fucking idiot. Half a million public sector workers losing their jobs, with zero growth measures put in place. Johnson's performance was excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 20, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 20, 2010 "7 million people will be 1000 pounds worse off ... through a 7 Billion cut in something" Yes, that would be the case if its an specific targetted split to whomever you are trying to scare and ignoring every other thing under the sun, Â It's a seven billion cut in welfare. Welfare isn't evenly split among the population. Seven million families receiving welfare sounds credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 The worst part about it was how smugly Osborne was announcing everything, forgetting hes announcing half a million job cuts. Johnson was absolutely right to show him up as he did. Â Osborne is the most dislikeable prick in Politics, and thats saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhalen2007 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 but in the end, he cut less than what Labour proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted October 20, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 20, 2010 When all these people end up redundant following these cuts, pay no tax and claim benefits, won't the economy be in a worse state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) You really are a fucking idiot. Half a million public sector workers losing their jobs, with zero growth measures put in place. Johnson's performance was excellent.  'fucking idiot' ? How? Please justify that criticism  Losing their jobs? How? What was announced for those losses was natural wastage and 80 percent turnover anyway and not replacing them ( so if they leave their jobs or are sacked it isnt losing is it?) iirc what was said that would be the main part of the job losses and 'some' (whatever that means, in these terms) redundancies.  Johnson's was performance excellent how exactly? He was like a cat who got the cream, yet this is coming from an albeit restructured party that put the country in a mess (necessary or otherwise) in the first place. To me it was mainly show-boating with lil substance as was his first chance to show off in his new role, rather than treating it with a necessary sense of occasion. ' Spreadsheet when to jeer and cheer' is hardly relavent to what ever case he is trying to make is it?  "7 million people will be 1000 pounds worse off ... through a 7 Billion cut in something" Yes, that would be the case if its an specific targetted split to whomever you are trying to scare and ignoring every other thing under the sun,  It's a seven billion cut in welfare. Welfare isn't evenly split among the population. Seven million families receiving welfare sounds credible.  My point was that 'owd numbnuts' had picked a figure at random, DWP says that there are 5 Million main jobless benefits. where his two million come from and what his figures include as are completely out of any context other than 'shock tactics' He continues to be a completely biased political 'Tory' editor ( even though I think his politics are now more in keeping with being anti-Tory and coalition) on a supposedly 'netural' broadcaster. I wouldnt have a problem, if there was ever any counterpoint to his editorial. Unfortunately there never is   The worst part about it was how smugly Osborne was announcing everything, forgetting hes announcing half a million job cuts. Johnson was absolutely right to show him up as he did. Osborne is the most dislikeable prick in Politics, and thats saying something.  I think that Osbourne is a strange un, very stilted and deathly dull or at least that's how he comes across in general. Regarding the smugness every Chancellor Ive seen since Kenneth Clarke has been smug when doing their fiscal thing, I think thats part of the grand theatre that comes with it,. I cant remember in recent times the Chancellor for which ever party is in charge, not showboating when delivery financial news such as reviews and budgets. Edited October 20, 2010 by patdfb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 20, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 20, 2010 My point was that 'owd numbnuts' had picked a figure at random, DWP says that there are 5 Million main jobless benefits. where his two million come from and what his figures include as are completely out of any context other than 'shock tactics' Â If you're right on that, the impact on individuals affected is thus GREATER than Robinson's example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts